If you value science, there’s only one way to vote on 8 November

THE US presidential campaign has been a horrifying spectacle, full of jaw-dropping plot twists that could have been plucked straight out of reality television. Most have been supplied by the reality TV star himself: conspiracy theories, bizarre late-night tweets, hate speech, insults and threats, degrading “locker-room talk” and allegations of sexual assault. But perhaps the killer twist is the FBI’s announcement that it is sifting through thousands more of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Not on that list: the actual issues. It has become customary to describe the quality of the debate as dismal; non-existent would be more accurate. The candidates took every opportunity to ignore the issues and attack their opponent’s shortcomings, real and imaginary. Powerful media outlets failed to pull the debate out of the gutter. Media Matters for Democracy, a left-leaning non-profit, found that over the entirety of 2016, three major TV news programmes spent a mere 32 minutes on the actual issues – mostly terrorism and foreign policy.

When they did deign to talk about substance, the candidates often displayed a wilful disregard for evidence. Donald Trump has been the main offender. His claim (later denied) that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy against the US ought to have disqualified him. But neither has Clinton been a paragon of clarity. She has failed to allay long-standing suspicions that she will obfuscate and omit if it suits her needs, and has not set out a coherent platform.

Advertisement

“When they did talk about substance, the candidates often displayed a wilful disregard for evidence“

So the US heads to the polls largely ignorant of the candidates’ positions on important issues such as the environment, energy, healthcare and drugs policy.

Trump’s party shoulders much of the blame. Many Republicans dislike him, but he is a monster of their own creation, the inevitable product of years of twisting the truth, pandering to know-nothing extremists and jeering at expert elites. Trump’s climate allegation, for example, is deranged claptrap, but is almost mainstream opinion within the party. His positions on other scientific issues are no better.

If he loses, maybe the GOP will see the error of its ways. Losing three presidential elections on the trot – and five out of the last seven – ought to send a clear message. But the power of the human mind to delude itself will probably triumph. Trump’s repeated insinuations that the election is rigged are setting the scene for more of the same, or worse.

When the ashes settle – if they ever do – there are important questions to be asked. One of the biggest is: to what extent is the polarisation and departure from reality driven by social media that herd people into echo chambers where they only hear news, views and “facts” that match their own?

Most readers of New Scientist do not have a vote. But like all US general elections, it will affect us all. If you do have a vote, we encourage you use it to stop the worst of the two candidates.

There’s another important rejoinder from this side of the pond. Don’t believe the polls. Recall that in the last two major elections in the UK the pollsters got it badly wrong, despite assertions that their methodologies were sound.

As New Scientist went to press, Trump looked to be heading to defeat. The only way to assure that lesser-of-two-evils outcome is to go out and vote for Clinton, even if you have to hold your nose.

This article appeared in print under the headline “Yes, Mrs President”